• From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Topic: Proposed changes for version 1.1

I'm finalizing the file for printing, and figured I'd make all the latest updates before shipping it off. Here are the changes I'm anticipating for version 1.1:

* p.16 -- Remove the following from last paragraph before FIGHTER MOVEMENT: "Each flight is treated as a separate ship. All rules that reference "ships" should be read to also include fighter flights."

Insert the following between the first and second sentence, first paragraph under FIGHTER COMBAT: "All flights in the same hex attack at the same time. When determining the activation sequence (p.9) count the number of hexes containing fighters, not the number of individual flights."

Rewrite second sentence, second paragraph after the Attack Modifier table to read, "Weapons with the catastrophic, diffuse, double damage, scatter, and triple damage traits (p.23) lose these abilities when attacking fighters."

* p.21 -- Add the following to the last paragraph before OVERTHRUSTERS: "Weapons with the catastrophic, double damage, and triple damage traits (p.23) lose these abilities when attacking minefields."

* p.25 -- Add the following to the third-to-last paragraph: "Weapons with the catastrophic, diffuse,
double damage, scatter, and triple damage traits lose these abilities when attacking seeker markers."

* p.65 -- Rewrite example in last paragraph before FIRING ARCS to read: "Thus, our example weapon would have the double damage trait and a BAS of 4.86 (1 (ROF) x 2.25 (IMP) x 0.60 x 1.5 (ACC 4+) x 1.20 (DMG 3) x 1.07 (SAE Double Damage) x 1.87 (second application of double damage)).

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

What about the armor rewrite...?  wink

  • Registered: 2011-09-30
  • Posts: 69

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

And my half-baked Gunship rules!

I kid! In all honesty, I like the changes I've seen thus far.

  • Registered: 2005-03-29
  • Posts: 859

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Seems reasonable...

  • Registered: 2010-11-15
  • Posts: 298

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Looks good!  With those changes you are forcing people to make some tough decisions (which is a good thing):

1) Do I space out my fighters to allow me to attack with more ships during one of my turns in the combat phase - or do I clump my fighters together to allow them to make one large decisive attack (hopefully earlier than they can all be shot down).

2) Do I buy Dx2, 3, Cat for my weapons to slightly improve my efficiency against ships at the cost of being significantly worse at shooting down fighters, mines and seekers - or do I ignore those traits or take a combination of them?

Seems to me all these items have been considered fully.  All the other new stuff (anti-armour, command etc) can really go in a supplement once its been thought out and tested.

-Tim

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

I like the changes too. I particularly like the expanded list of Traits that are ineffective versus fighters. I think that will make a nice line between anti-ship and anti-fighter weapons, without the addition of any "exclusive" traits. I also like the previously discussed changes to the fighter rules.
Cheers,
Erik

  • Registered: 2010-11-15
  • Posts: 298

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Dan,

Any thoughts on including all the "ARCS" that you are currently featuring in the Drydock (PS, CD, SW, PW etc) in the main rulebook?  It would be a handy reference! Not sure if you need to draw them up like the others, but maybe under "custom" arcs you could make a note about these ones being common custom arcs.

-Tim

  • Registered: 2005-06-08
  • Posts: 760

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

I can see a potential question with regards Proximity weapons P25.

What happens to multiple fighter flights in the target or adjacent hex?

How about adding a (two page if you can manage it) quick reference sheet at the back of the book? A lot of rules books used to have a two sided loose insert. I have even seen ones with two, one for each side/player (there were not many in those days smile ).

Paul

  • Registered: 2008-01-20
  • Posts: 10

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

* p.25 -- Add the following to the third-to-last paragraph: "Weapons with the catastrophic, diffuse,
double damage, scatter, and triple damage traits lose these abilities when attacking seeker markers."

Does this replace/eliminate the rule about penalties applied to weapons with various traits when firing on seekers? ("Attacks against seeker markers incur...")

And shouldn't scatter provide some benefit against seekers?

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Naevius wrote:

Does this replace/eliminate the rule about penalties applied to weapons with various traits when firing on seekers? ("Attacks against seeker markers incur...")

No -- those penalties apply based on traits possessed by the seekers themselves, not the weapons firing at the seekers.

And shouldn't scatter provide some benefit against seekers?

My concern is, since attacks vs. seekers will usually happen at short range, you can use "scatter" to artificially inflate the effectiveness of anti-seeker weapons (3x the dice for less than 2x the cost).

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2010-11-15
  • Posts: 298

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Doh, must redesign my anti-fighter weapons then  sad

But you are right, both Diffuse and Scatter would be very good for anti-fighter weapons as they are typically made at short range, and the cost of most traits is more heavily weighed on what is happening at long and medium range.

-Tim

  • Registered: 2008-01-20
  • Posts: 10

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

cricket wrote:
Naevius wrote:

Does this replace/eliminate the rule about penalties applied to weapons with various traits when firing on seekers? ("Attacks against seeker markers incur...")

No -- those penalties apply based on traits possessed by the seekers themselves, not the weapons firing at the seekers.

And shouldn't scatter provide some benefit against seekers?

My concern is, since attacks vs. seekers will usually happen at short range, you can use "scatter" to artificially inflate the effectiveness of anti-seeker weapons (3x the dice for less than 2x the cost).

Oops. Mis-read that first rule completely.

Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Naevius wrote:

Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?

I could see allowing scatter to counteract the -1 penalty vs. fighters/mines/seekers.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2009-08-03
  • Posts: 245

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

cricket wrote:
Naevius wrote:

Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?

I could see allowing scatter to counteract the -1 penalty vs. fighters/mines/seekers.

The Shotgun Effect.  I like it!

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

cricket wrote:
Naevius wrote:

Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?

I could see allowing scatter to counteract the -1 penalty vs. fighters/mines/seekers.

Hmmm. Would it be too ridiculous to only apply that at Short range when the attack dice would normally be at their greatest?
Cheers,
Erik

  • Registered: 2011-08-12
  • Posts: 31

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Nomad wrote:

Hmmm. Would it be too ridiculous to only apply that at Short range when the attack dice would normally be at their greatest?

I like the Flavor (or Flavour to some) of only applying at Short Range.  If you know anything about Space ... it gets big, real quick.

  • Registered: 2022-11-16
  • Posts: 516

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Blacklancer99 wrote:
cricket wrote:
Naevius wrote:

Maybe scatter should provide a lesser bonus than normal, but still some benefit?

I could see allowing scatter to counteract the -1 penalty vs. fighters/mines/seekers.

Hmmm. Would it be too ridiculous to only apply that at Short range when the attack dice would normally be at their greatest?
Cheers,
Erik

Yes (meaning possibly too ridiculous).
Wouldn't this affect the cost multiplier a little?

It seems like now we're at the point where we've got weapon abilities that only apply some of the time, and that some of the time now only applies to some of the ranges?
We may need a reference sheet simply for the exceptions. wink

Kevin

  • Registered: 2008-12-22
  • Posts: 654

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

underling wrote:

It seems like now we're at the point where we've got weapon abilities that only apply some of the time, and that some of the time now only applies to some of the ranges?
We may need a reference sheet simply for the exceptions. wink

Kevin

I can accept that logic. That being the case then, I would personally rather see Scatter not apply at all, and reserve that ability specifically to Pinpoint.
Just my opinion.
Dan will do as Dan thinks is best! smile
Cheers,
Erik

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Download file updated to version 1.1.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

I feel the rules need clarifications about fighters being ships or not being ships. Can be confusing, btw, if they are ships in some ways, and not in others.
Especially about the initiative, do you count fighters with ships or not, etc.

Marc

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

madpax wrote:

I feel the rules need clarifications about fighters being ships or not being ships. Can be confusing, btw, if they are ships in some ways, and not in others.
Especially about the initiative, do you count fighters with ships or not, etc.

Please refer to the changes made on p.16.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2010-03-09
  • Posts: 630

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

OK.
P.8, fighters are not mentionned in the movement phase of the sequence of play. Are they activated the way ships are, but after all ships have moved?

Marc

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

madpax wrote:

P.8, fighters are not mentionned in the movement phase of the sequence of play. Are they activated the way ships are, but after all ships have moved?

p.16, first paragraph under "FIGHTER MOVEMENT".

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website

  • Registered: 2007-07-29
  • Posts: 55

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

I would caution against using explicit lists like "Weapons with the catastrophic, diffuse, double damage, scatter, and triple damage traits" in a definition because it isn't expandable later.  The first expansion will have Mauve as a trait and you'll shakefist and have to errata.  You could change that to "Weapons with the Kleptork subtrait..." and then Mauve is "Mauve (Kleptork): Shoots rainbows."

  • From: Denver, CO
  • Registered: 2005-03-27
  • Posts: 3,578

Re: Proposed changes for version 1.1

Boneless wrote:

"Mauve (Kleptork): Shoots rainbows."

This is, quite possibly, the best weapon trait suggestion EVER.

Daniel Kast
Majestic Twelve Games
cricket@mj12games.com

mj12games's Website